From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People ex Rel. Hurlbut v. Bingham

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 16, 1906
78 N.E. 1098 (N.Y. 1906)

Opinion

Argued October 3, 1906

Decided October 16, 1906

John J. Delany, Corporation Counsel ( James D. Bell and Patrick E. Callahan of counsel), for appellant.

Alfred E. Sander for respondent.


We are of the opinion that the limitation on the time to commence a proceeding, contained in section 302 of the New York city charter, does not apply to a proceeding to restore to active duty a member of the police force who has been retired on account of alleged physical incapacity. The claim that the relator was guilty of laches in commencing this proceeding, and that he has waived any right to relief herein present questions of fact which, although they might have been determined otherwise, have been determined in the relator's favor by the court at Special Term, and such determination has been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. We cannot review such questions of fact.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

CULLEN, Ch. J., EDWARD T. BARTLETT, HAIGHT, VANN, WERNER, WILLARD BARTLETT and CHASE, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed.


Summaries of

People ex Rel. Hurlbut v. Bingham

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 16, 1906
78 N.E. 1098 (N.Y. 1906)
Case details for

People ex Rel. Hurlbut v. Bingham

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. HENRY HURLBUT, Respondent, v …

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 16, 1906

Citations

78 N.E. 1098 (N.Y. 1906)
78 N.E. 1098

Citing Cases

O'Connor v. City of New York

That all of the limitations in this section are not to be strictly construed as they literally read has been…